Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I think a simple iscoroutinefunction check will be pretty close to 100% > matching what users expect. Yes, "pretty close", but not reliable. :) E.g. I can easily design a decorator that when applied first would break the proposed iscoroutinefunction logic. While decorators like that aren't popular, I'd be wary about introducing a solution that can lead to hours of debugging in some weird (and maybe stupid) cases. > Or, if we don't change the semantics, then we can still be 100% confident > that if iscoroutinefunction returns true, then the user has made a mistake. > (I.e., if we make this issue a warning, then it's possible we'll miss print a > warning in some complicated cases, but we can be confident that all the > warnings we do print are correct.) +1 to implement a warning the way you suggest. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue37398> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
